Gotta give Bush credit: He made the exact right move at the exact right time. Ditching Rumsfeld, the single most visible symbol of the Iraq debacle short of Bush himself, was perfectly timed. Had he dumped Rummy shortly before the election, it would have been seen as a desperation move. I suppose there’s a possibility that it might have changed the outcome, which has been seen as a voter repudiation of the war. But I don’t think it’s a sizable chance, and probably would have been seen as a case of “too little, too late.” In this instance, though, it managed to grab headlines from the Democratic triumph back to the White House. Bush has snared the spin cycle before the election dust has settled. He did the right thing in getting rid of an advisor who has given him nothing but bad advice and been a PR catastrophe on more than one occasion, and he did it at a time when his support base is at an all-time moral low. He has sent a definite message: He’s not going to be spending the next two years with more of the same and staying the course, steering the remainder of his presidency into irrelevancy.
With a smartening-up Bush and a newly energized Democratic majority, let’s see if the government finally gets on the right track.
PAD
• 
Oh no, Mike, none of us really want you to leave. Every kingdom needs a fool.
I finally had the chance to go check out some more of Our Mike on the Little Green Footballs site–you remember, the one he tried to intimidate anyone from going to even though he himself not only frequented it, he actually posted on it! I knew there ahd to be some comedy gold there and sure enough, I think I can see why he would prefer nobody bring it up–he’s exactly doing here what he did there. Start out ok and get increasingly shrill and trollish as he gets clobbered by anyone with half a mind to do it. in the words of one poster, Judith: The conversation with Mike has been most enlightening. I’ve leraned lots of new stuff. I enjoy trolls coming in and getting creamed because it is such a great learning experience for me.
That was 2 and a half years ago and obviously nothing has changed.
Hey Mike, any other sites you’re embarrassed to have been on?
sean–So it seems to me that a truly skilled rapier fighter might be able to aty out of the waty and just keep inflicting small wounds into the katanna fighter until he got a good shot in after loss of blood took their toll. Of course, one good slice from the katanna and it’s all over. The battle could be decided more by the conditioning of the fighters than by the weapons.
(I note that much of what I’ve read indicates that the Samurai actually relied more on the spear than the sword. The katanna was the weapon of last resort.)
have you seen the final battle in ROB ROY– rapier vs broadsword? it was choreographed by William Hobbs, a genius. I HAVE to find his book Fight Direction for Stage and Screen.
Posted by: Jerry C
[Jet Li] said it about Martial Arts, but I’ve always found that to be true of weapon skills as well. Even the Chinese Spear, long now a greatly feared close range weapon, can be beaten by a skilled swordsman. It just takes one hëll of a truckload and a half of skill to do it.
One of Akira Kurosawa’s first films (the first, i think) was about rivalry between students of jiu-jitsu and students of judo, one of which was newer and seen by masters of the older style as a threat.
And Stan Sakai’s Usagi Yojimbo has more than once featured disputes (with results up to and including murder) between sword schools, and the story of an obsessive samurai who has determined to become the greatest swordsman in the world so that he can geat the one swordsman who beathim when they were younger…
Mike Weber, a great film on that theme is Sword of Doom.
How many quotations of “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group].” can you put in one post?
Mike, if you can find one other person who agrees with the conclusions about genocide that you think are so plain, anybody, a friend, familymember, pet, anybody, I’d be very surprised. I’d like to see if there’s any other person who will back you up on this. If for no other reason, so as the end the repetative nature of this conversation.
————–
And now back to swords:
There’s a quiet little movie based on a script of Akira Kurosawa, I don’t remember the name. There’s this unemployed polite samurai and his wife. The samurai is the equivalent of the fastest gun in the west — he doesn’t want to show off but somehow gets into trouble. He get’s hired as a sword trainer, duels the nobleman, but accidently defeats him too easily.
The nice thing in this movie is a scene in which this samurai and an opponent stand in front of each other. the opponent moves to attack. The samurai moves his sword slightly. The opponent stops. He raises his weapon again, the samurai makes another small movement, he stops again. When he finally does attack, the samurai disarms him in a second. There’s no blood (in this scene), no flashy moves. Very quiet. In another scene the samurai discribes a meeting with a master who surrendered without actually fighting, because he recongnized the samurai’s superiority.
—————
“(I note that much of what I’ve read indicates that the Samurai actually relied more on the spear than the sword. The katanna was the weapon of last resort.)”
I know much less on this than you do, but I’ve read somewhere that some of the culture associated with the samurai was developed in the 19th century in a society in which the role of samurai was already more ceremonial. I’m not sure, I know very little on this.
———————–
In descriptions of fighting in 12th century medieval Europe — in Chretien de Troyes Arthurian legends — sword fights usually consist of two knights in chainmail with shields clobbering each other until tthe shield and armor are broken to pieces.
I was once in Warwick castle in England. Part of the tourist attractions of this castle are demonstrations of various weapons, including rapiers (by people in costume). The person making the demonstration claimed that rapiers can be used for cutting in one fighting technique, but not in another (Italian?). He also claimed you can cut very deep with a rapier. I suppose you have to take into consideration the quality of the steel at the time period, and the absense of armor.
I think in Rob Roy a smallsword and not a rapier was used. I’m not sure.
I suppose part of the problem in a duel between a rapier or small sword and a heavier weapon is the ability to block your opponents attacks. Maybe even a katana will be disadvantaged in that regard when facing a broadsword
———
“Also reminds me of the Wheel of Time (I forget which book) where the head sword trainer of the White Tower reminds his students of the story of the greatest swordsman to ever live, who only ever lost one fight. To a farmer with a quarterstaff.”
I remeber this. have some criticism against Robert Jordan, but one of his cooler tricks is the way he describes sword fights. By using fancy names for different sword techniques he creates the impression that your watching an amazingly complex sword fight without actually describing what the fighters are doing.
I threatened to stalk no one for going to Lennie Green Footballs.
From the most recent post to their most recent entry:
You, Bill Mulligan, have no reservation against racism. How did I try to intimidate you against going?
Raphael Lemkin the man who coined the word, and included in its definition “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group].”
Neato, Mike’s…..watching me as I post here. No, that’s not neato, that’s creepy.
Mike, while it may SEEM like I was replying directly to your oft-quoted an little understood phrase about genocide and what not…by the way, feel free to clarify that gem if you want, because I don’t seem to be alone in my lack of understanding of what point you’re trying to make…I was in fact commenting about your work of posts here. You quickly devolved into responses that were not responses, but “your mother” disguised as responses. I’m not sure exactly how Wilmer has turned that premise into a somewhat successful show, but it does seem to be popular with the Laguna Beach crowd.
Now, on to swords…
It’s not the weapon, but the wielder, that you need be concerned with. Anyone watching Jackie Chan should know that he’s the last person you want to get intoa fight with in, say, your typical office. Every stapler, in-box, three-hole-punch, chair, lamp, and broom becomes a deadly weapon for him. Ok, maybe not deadly. Jordan’s example of the swordmaster and the farmer (sadly, one of the few truly memorable scenes from that potentially great series) shows again that it matters not what you’re armed with, but how you use it that counts.
But personally, I’d prefer the katana. While the broad may look cool, it’s basically a bat with an edge. May as well use a mace, you’re less likely to cut yourself on it.
Posted by: Mike at November 21, 2006 08:05 AM
Raphael Lemkin the man who coined the word, and included in its definition “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group].”
Uhm, yeah, Lemkin died in 1959. What, are you trying to pull some kind of “Weekend at Bernie’s” stunt?
Oh Mike, don’t play stupid…er, stupider. When I pointed out how you had been posting at Little Green Footballs your reply–and it’s still right up there, ya dope– was “Lennie Green Footballs? The site that, instead of naming Michael Moore their “Idiotarian of the Year,” chose instead a dead 23-year-old who volunteered to teach pre-school to Palestinian children? You frequent those cowards? No wonder you are so fuuucked uuup, Bill Mulligan.”
One can only wonder how fuuucked up someone who reads it, registers there, and posts opinions there must be!
But it’s easy to see why you didn’t want us to go there–those awful people made you look stupid…er, stupider. You ended up having to apologize for getting your facts wrong twice in just one thread. Amazing. Must hurt, even now.
But that’s Our Mike. Leaving a trail of eye rolling amazement at his antics wherever he goes. It’s no wonder he’s frantic about anyone “revealing” his last name (which is easy enough to find–googling “lennie-like” is all it takes, it isn’t like he hasn’t been saying the same dopey stuff for years.) One can only imagine hoe many things Mike has said in a fit of trollish pique that even he must regret. Sadly for him, the internet doesn’t forget.
Mike, I was looking for a person who will come here and support your argument. Or a clear written statement.
Obviously we’re already aware that you can quote a phrase from Lamkin and interpret it creatively. But the question is if you can find somebody to else to support your strange interpretation of the text.
————
the broadsword was suited to the armor and tactics of its time.
After all, if your interpretation was as plainly observable as you claim, it would have been plainly observable to anybody.
And I gave you to much credit. I thought you’d have a better way to avoid the challenge than simply re-quoting the same text again.
Posted by: Micha at November 21, 2006 09:09 AM
And I gave you to much credit.
Mickey’s a bad credit risk.
Bill Mulligan–HE HAS A BOOK? Crap. Now I have a NEW quest. And now, thanks to you, I will forever picture the internet with a nose that would make Klinger’s look small and craving peanuts.
So many people that I’ve spoken to didn’t like Rob Roy because they couldn’t understand the dialogue. Accents have never given me trouble. So much of that movie was really well done.
Micha, that scene where the master yields has actually been copied a lot, I’ve seen it a bunch of places. It’s a cool scene.
Bobb-two things. First the mace. OOOOOOH, the mace. I want one. Second, on the weapon and how you use it…no wonder I’m so popular with the ladies.
Micha, that scene where the master yields has actually been copied a lot, I’ve seen it a bunch of places. It’s a cool scene.
It’s also echoed near the beginning of THE SEVEN SAMURAI where the master swordman squares off against a far less skilled opponent. As they go through their motions one character says something to the effect “Such a waste…it’s so obvious.” I always thought of the character of the lone swrodsman from that movie as a possible template for Wolverine back in the early years of the (then) New X-Men.
“Bobb-two things. First the mace. OOOOOOH, the mace. I want one. Second, on the weapon and how you use it…no wonder I’m so popular with the ladies.”
And here I was trying not to go there…
If we’re talking about just swords, it’s the katana. But if we’re just talking about weapons, I’ve recently wanted to learn the bladed staff. Not sure it even exists, but think a short single edged sword blade mounted on a quarterstaff. Watching the spear action from Crouching Tiger and Hero makes me think that kind of weapon lets you fight in all kinds of situations.
The only problem with a bladed staff like that is if you’re in a knock down drag-out with a lot of people fighting around you, you don’t have enough space to use it to it’s full potential. Between the distance and weight, it’s a nice weapon, but if you can’t swing it and get up enough speed, all you can do is poke people. But something like that on horseback…remind me to be nice to you, Bobb.
Ok, so how about this question–wht acould the barbarians have done to win against the Roman armies? Was it just a matter of discipline? You read about battles where the Romans took on armies 10 times their size and it just seems insane that sheer force of number didn’t matter more. If you were Vercingetorix, how would you have attacked them?
Ok, so how about this question–wht acould the barbarians have done to win against the Roman armies? Was it just a matter of discipline?
Not simply a matter of discipline, though that was certainly a part of it. It was the overall cultural psychology as it pertained to war. The Romans were among the first, if not the first, to use combat tactics emphasizing overall victory above the winning of personal glory for individual fighters.
-Rex Hondo
Vercingetorix mistake was not being ready for a siege in Alesia, or allowing himself to be caught in such a siege. By allowing himself to be besieged, he placed himself in a situation where the Romans had an advantage, siege, and he lost his main advantage, which was the Romans’ lack of supplies. At this stage he didn’t have much options but attacking the Roman walls surrounding his city, instead of forcing him to attack his walls. And here the Romans had 3 advanages: better fortifications, better soldiers, better general. He still had a chance of defeating the romans, but much smaller. Add to his the fact that the Gauls did not have the spirit to make his defeat into an symbolic Alamo, and continue fighting with new leaders, so the Romans won.
Micha,
I think the movie you’re talking about is “Ame agaru”.
______________________________________________
“Ok, so how about this question–wht acould the barbarians have done to win against the Roman armies? Was it just a matter of discipline?”
Discipline and and a willingness to learn and use new tactics. Some of the various barbarian leaders were smart enough to know how to out think and out fight smaller armies, but they wouldn’t adjust for the Roman tactics.
Hëll, lots of warriors made that mistake. Boudica (highly over-rated military leader that she was aside) ended up crashing and burning because she just kept throwing the same failed and failing attack tactic at the Romans over and over again. Her final battle is a textbook example of how tactis and disipline trump brute force and numbers every time.
______________________________________________
I’m for either the katana or the Chinese sword with a sai and a mace strapped to each leg as backups/tight quarters choices.
Hey, this is even more off topic than everything else but a buddy of mine just sent me this–http://www.yourmomsbasement.com/archives/2006/11/galactus_is_com.html#m
It’s the long rumored collaboration between Jack Chick and Stan Lee.
So, you’re allowed to refer to me, but if I respond, that’s creepy?
That’s a response by someone who can’t stand to have his word challenged. That’s needy.
“ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” in the defninition of genocide. The only virtue in deying they match is to shelter racism. There is no ambiguity.
Uhm, yeah, your only challenge to citing Lemkin is that he’s dead? Thanks for finally admitting “ANY racially motivated murder” matches “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group],” Bill Myers.
Jesus Christ died. Is Christianity a “Weekend at Bernie’s” stunt, too?
From wikipedia:
That’s the kind of shelter Lennie Green Footballs readers needs: closed registration.
I didn’t even know the site required registration until you brought it up. It isn’t like you’re going to find a trail of posts by me that end in May 2004.
Bill Mulligan, in constantly correcting your stupidity I feel the discomfort of someone trying to discipline a retarded child by slapping him in the ear.
I don’t know what you are referring to, but adapting to new facts is not a weakness. Only someone needy enough to insist on settling disagreements by his word alone would find that wounding.
No, don’t scrape up the courage to actually provide a link to what you are referring to or anything. Why go to the trouble when it’s just going to turn out to be another instance of you writing a check with your mouth your butt can’t cash?
You mean like Sean Scullion?
He then tried to qualify this by saying the definition continued, but the continued definition offers no exception to “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group].”
Hmmm. This is curious. I seem to be having trouble posting my reply to Mike. Yet this, obviously, gets through. I seem to recall an earlier problem when links were included…
No, even eliminating the link didn’t work…hmmm.
I’ll try breaking it up a bit.
Bill Mulligan, in constantly correcting your stupidity I feel the discomfort of someone trying to discipline a retarded child by slapping him in the ear.
I know I hurt your feelings Mike, by pointing out the hypocrisy of accusing me of being “fuuucked uuup” for reading your post on a webpage that you obviously feel ok about reading and posting on, but that’s no reason to get goofier. And I do hope you don’t routinely slap mentally challenged children on the ear. They, unlike you, can’t help themselves.
I don’t know what you are referring to, but adapting to new facts is not a weakness. Only someone needy enough to insist on settling disagreements by his word alone would find that wounding.
Correct! Which is why it so obviously bothers you that you pretty much got bìŧçhšláppëd by a bunch of rightwingers.
Oh by the way folks–Mike’s WORD DU JOUR (that’s Word of the Day) is NEEDY. Everybody say it. Needy. Use it in a sentence. “Your inability to agree with Mike’s views that killing a person who belongs to a race is the same thing as genocide makes you needy. Oh wait. That’s stupid. Pointing that out makes you needy.”
Yes, this seems to be working better. Onward.
No, don’t scrape up the courage to actually provide a link to what you are referring to or anything. Why go to the trouble when it’s just going to turn out to be another instance of you writing a check with your mouth your butt can’t cash?
Oh Mike, Mike, Mike. I was trying to protect you. I know how scared you are that people will find out your last name and it’s all over that site. Gosh, I’d hate to get, you know, forced on the CNN to explain my perfidy! Because we all know you have that power!
But ok. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=9537_Egypt_Renounces_Camp_David
Mike says: The hundreds of thousands of war demonstrators haven’t given a tiny fraction of the support of 12 years of Republicans in the White House. George W Bush himself gave the Taliban $42 million May of 2001. That’s at least $420 per protester who shows up at a good anti-war demonstration. That was in May 2001. You think a typical war protester gave Muslin extremists $420?
Mike- (about an hour later) Have just learned via google that the may 2001 Taliban funding story was discredited just this november. My apologies for that misinformation.
and we conclude….
Trying to salvage his wounded ego, mike then makes the observation that a poster posted something 3 times in a row. Yeah, I don’t get it either, but to Mike this is devastating repartee. Another poster writes “I don’t think Mike is a troll but he does come close with that last one”
Well! You know Our Mike. He takes this and tries to make himself the victim, boo hoo.
Mike- Do you really censor people for pointing out Frank posted 3 times in a row — when he did — or is you position so weak that you feel you have to come up with any pretense to do so?
Nobody seems to have any idea what he’s blathering on about–a situation we can all sympathize with. So Mike explains himself.
Mike- This site has a rule about censoring trolls.
And Mike must once again concede that he had his facts wrong.
Mike– I stand corrected. Must have been thinking of another site Thank you.
And give him credit–he was gracious. Too bad the bad taste of looking so foolish in the space of just a few hours has made him want to intimidate anyone from looking this up. Sad, really. And again, I ask, are there any OTHER sites where we can read your pearls of wisdom or are they ALL at places that only “fuuuuucked uuuuuuup” people (like, presumably, you) go to?
and we conclude….
Trying to salvage his wounded ego, mike then makes the observation that a poster posted something 3 times in a row. Yeah, I don’t get it either, but to Mike this is devastating repartee. Another poster writes “I don’t think Mike is a troll but he does come close with that last one”
Well! You know Our Mike. He takes this and tries to make himself the victim, boo hoo.
Mike- Do you really censor people for pointing out Frank posted 3 times in a row — when he did — or is you position so weak that you feel you have to come up with any pretense to do so?
Nobody seems to have any idea what he’s blathering on about–a situation we can all sympathize with. So Mike explains himself.
Mike- This site has a rule about censoring trolls.
And Mike must once again concede that he had his facts wrong.
Mike– I stand corrected. Must have been thinking of another site Thank you.
And give him credit–he was gracious. Too bad the bad taste of looking so foolish in the space of just a few hours has made him want to intimidate anyone from looking this up. Sad, really. And again, I ask, are there any OTHER sites where we can read your pearls of wisdom or are they ALL at places that only “fuuuuucked uuuuuuup” people (like, presumably, you) go to?
Well, it looks like my last comments are getting sangged in the anti-spam. Don’t know why. Anyway, long story short, Mike the pretends they are trying to censor him, lies about the site rules, gets cauf=ght and apologizes. Again. No wonder he tried to make the site off limits.
Sad, really.
One last try.
Trying to salvage his wounded ego, mike then makes the observation that a poster posted something 3 times in a row. Yeah, I don’t get it either, but to Mike this is devastating repartee. Another poster writes “I don’t think Mike is a troll but he does come close with that last one”
Well! You know Our Mike. He takes this and tries to make himself the victim, boo hoo.
Mike- Do you really censor people for pointing out Frank posted 3 times in a row — when he did — or is you position so weak that you feel you have to come up with any pretense to do so?
Nobody seems to have any idea what he’s blathering on about–a situation we can all sympathize with. So Mike explains himself.
Mike- This site has a rule about censoring trolls.
And Mike must once again concede that he had his facts wrong.
Mike– I stand corrected. Must have been thinking of another site Thank you.
At least he was gracious. I still wonder how many other sites there are with Mike’s pearls of wisdom or are they ALL only places where people who are fuuuuuucked uuuuuup (like, presumably, Mike) go.
Folks, I understand that many of you are having trouble understanding Mike’s posts. Worry not, I am hear to help. I have discovered Mike’s Rosetta Stone:
Posted by: Mike at November 21, 2006 09:45 PM
So, you’re allowed to refer to me, but if I respond, that’s creepy?
Translation: Why am I still a virgin? I am lonely.
Posted by: Mike at November 21, 2006 09:45 PM
That’s a response by someone who can’t stand to have his word challenged. That’s needy.
Translation: I drank turpentine last night.
Posted by: Mike at November 21, 2006 09:45 PM
“ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” in the defninition of genocide. The only virtue in deying they match is to shelter racism. There is no ambiguity.
Translation: Wow, when they say not to eat the mushrooms in your back yard, they aren’t kidding. Last night I thought I was making love to Britney Spears, but I woke up the next morning with nothing but a frozen turkey in my bed!
Posted by: Mike at November 21, 2006 09:45 PM
Uhm, yeah, your only challenge to citing Lemkin is that he’s dead? Thanks for finally admitting “ANY racially motivated murder” matches “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group],” Bill Myers.
Jesus Christ died. Is Christianity a “Weekend at Bernie’s” stunt, too?
Translation: I hit my head really hard when I was 12.
Posted by: Mike at November 21, 2006 09:45 PM
Bill Mulligan, in constantly correcting your stupidity I feel the discomfort of someone trying to discipline a retarded child by slapping him in the ear.
Translation: I like to hit retarded children because they don’t fight back real well. Does that make me a bad person?
Posted by: Mike at November 21, 2006 09:45 PM
No, don’t scrape up the courage to actually provide a link to what you are referring to or anything. Why go to the trouble when it’s just going to turn out to be another instance of you writing a check with your mouth your butt can’t cash?
Translation: I like to stick my head in plastic bags.
Posted by: Mike at November 21, 2006 09:45 PM
He then tried to qualify this by saying the definition continued, but the continued definition offers no exception to “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group].”
Translation: I am very frightened of clowns.
In Mike’s defense, clowns ARE pretty scary.
Ðámņ, Bill, that was just too funny. No wonder Mad Mikey keeps trying to make up some Bizarro World argument around here to fight for. Whenever he tries to argue real world facts he just gets his @$$ handed to him in increasingly humiliating and comical ways.
You also have to feel a bit sad for him. That post thread was over two years ago and he’s still flogging some of the same Bizarro World ideas with no sign of growth or concept of the reality. I thought it was particularly sad when he kept beating the Saddam Hussein-Ronald Reagan-Donald Rumsfeld handshake-signed letter of praise link to death, kept implying that it was done to reward Saddam specifically for using chemical weapons, got repeatedly slapped down to humiliating depths over it, back peddled in his argument over what he was claiming to imply with it and then went right back to doing it again.
Why is it particularly sad? Because Mad Mikey is still posting that link for God knows what reason now. He’s posted it here several times in the last three weeks.
What? Oh, no…. I don’t feel sad for Mad Mikey. I feel sad for us. We’ve got at least two plus years more of his genocide crusade to sift through on this site.
**Sometime in the near future.**
___________________________________________________________________________
Posted by: Sean Scullion at July 8, 2007 07:09 PM
I think they did a much better job with this Harry Potter then they did with the last. The formation of D.A. was a bit rushed, but it still worked well.
____________________________________________________________________________
Posted by: Bill Myers at July 8, 2007 07:16 PM
Yeah, I thought they did a wonderful job with the twins’ pranks. My WIFE and I were rolling in the isles over the twins turning part of the school into a swamp and how well played the reaction of Dolores Umbridge was done by Imelda Staunton. She just nailed it.
____________________________________________________________________________
Posted by: Jerry C at July 8, 2007 08:25 PM
Yeah, definitely better then the last one. They had more story to work with on this one and the direction was better. Hey, no disrespect meant to Mike Newell here. I’ve loved his other films, but he’s not a big vision director. Both Jenn and I felt that his direction was great in the people interaction scenes, but that he made the film feel small and even a bit claustrophobic in scenes where it should have been big, majestic and soaring. Although, conversely, he might have been ideally suited to direct this film.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Posted by: Mike at July 8, 2007 08:47 PM
Posted by: Jerry C at July 21, 2006 08:25 PM
…disrespect meant to Mike Newell here. I’ve loved his other films, but he’s not a big vision director.
You only disrespect him because you can’t accept that a group of defensive white guys deny “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group?]”
______________________________________________________________________________
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 8, 2007 09:09 PM
Sigh, Mike went and set a new record for himself. It only took him four posts to inject his genocide fetish in to a new thread. Please, Mike, in all seriousness, seek help.
______________________________________________________________________________
Posted by: Mike at July 8, 2007 09:13 PM
Bill Mulligan went and set a new record for himself. It only took him 22 minutes to come up with such a weak response.
Your neediness is sickening. And all because you refuse to accept that, “ANY racially motivated murder” matches the plain wording of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” in the definition of genocide. The only virtue in denying they match is to shelter racism. There is no ambiguity in this.
______________________________________________________________________________
**We now return to…. er…. now.**
You know that we’re all doomed to this future. Oh, the humanity!!!!!!!
Mike wrote:
“[sic — are you really in Israel?]”
Yes
Mike wrote:
“You mean like Sean Scullion?
Yes, you semantic whiz kid, the phrases match.
He then tried to qualify this by saying the definition continued, but the continued definition offers no exception to “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group].”
Unlike Lamkin, Sean, thankfully, is still alive and denies your interpretation of his statement. He does not support either your interpretation of Lamkin or of himself.
Mike wrote:
“Jesus Christ died. Is Christianity a “Weekend at Bernie’s” stunt, too?”
Jesus’ words were often misinterpreted too. But at least they were able to convince other (living) people of their opinions.
In Jerusalem, where I live, we have something called the Jerusalem syndrom, where people come to the city and go a little crazy. There’s a woman walking around the city center dressed in white, carrying a staff. There’s some biblical text written on her white cassock(?). There was a guy in the Old City who used to dress like king david and carry a harp. There used to be a family, from Michigen I think, the blondest family, that used to live in a tent and dress in biblical costume.
Jerry C wrote:
“You know that we’re all doomed to this future. Oh, the humanity!!!!!!!”
Jerry, I have this image of you as Charlton Heston in the last scene from Planet of the Apes.
Bill Myers wrote:
“Last night I thought I was making love to Britney Spears, but I woke up the next morning with nothing but a frozen turkey in my bed!”
So long as the Turkey is a concenting adult this is a valid life style choice. It is wrong to mock someone’s personal life. Especially when the absurdity of his own words speaks for itself.
“Oh Mike, Mike, Mike. I was trying to protect you. I know how scared you are that people will find out your last name.”
Is it Rumpelstilskin?
Jerry, I really wish you’d give me my crystal ball back, you weenie. I have to find out if I’m going to get Stace the right stuff for Christmas and if I can just steal the end of my script, I don’t have to write it.
“…but the continued definition offers no exception…”
A complete definition doesn’t NEED to offer exceptions, it merely expands the point. Is it lonely under the bridge you hit your head on very hard when you were 12 with your head in a plastic bag? Shame you choose to still live there waiting for goats named William. Or is THAT why you have such a problem with Messrs. Mulligan and Myers?
The definition that Mike often quotes does not say that killing members of another race etc. is genocide. What it says is that killing members of another race etc. is one of several methods used to accomplish genocide, i.e. the destruction of a racial or cultural or religious groups.
And now, thanks to Mr. Myers, I have a 16-pound paperweight in my freezer, and meatloaf will be had in the Scullion household for Thanksgiving. Don’t you KNOW not to use such holiday-weighted images around people with imaginations like ours?
Speaking of smart moves, do you guys think this move Chertoff’s taking, requiring “Nearly” all people entering the country to show passports, A)should’ve been done for the last six years, and B)shouldn’t have the word “nearly” anywhere within four states of it?
Mike, your logic…isn’t.
I know I can be cryptic sometimes, but I thought my reply (it only fails to make sense if you break it into two parts) made it pretty clear that I was creeped out by your seeming ability to see exactly what I was responding to, based on your assumption that I was responding to your previous post before mine. It was a little joke, you see…that you were somehow spying on me.
Your lack of logic continues now that you’ve somewhat explained your repeated quote. So, you’re saying that the guy that coined the phrase “genocide” included in his definition any racially motivated killing, and that to deny your viewpoint is to “shelter racism.”
To quote the “the hëll?” of the moment…huhbuwha?
As Mike probably well knows, because he’s shown such a penchant for good research (and now I know, thanks to Wiki, and knowing is half the battle), genocide is a term defined in a 1948 UN Resolution, accepting in large part the works of Mr. Lemkin. For the term to have meaning, it has to have limits, otherwise, what’s the point of having a word for something? If “any racially motivated murder” made that murder an act of genocide, then it would be so common as to make the term irrelevant.
Besides which, it doesn’t hold water. For one, acts of genocide extend beyond murder/killing. Second, any racially motivated murder might not involve an overall desire to see that entire race eliminated. Someone might be prejudiced against a race, and may act to kill one individual of that race, but not ever act in violence against that race again. That single act of racial violence does not equal genocide because it’s not accompanied by the intent to totally eliminate the race…just that one individual.
So, denying that any racially motivated murder equals genocide doesn’t shelter racism…it exposes faulty logic and false conclusions. It exposes Mike as someone that likes to SOUND like he’s making sense, because it helps him justify his view of the world.
Mike, rather than trying to make the world make sense to you, you should try making sense of the world around you.
Bobb, good effort, but I fear that it will fall on deaf ears. Mike seems to be using the internet equivalent of raising his voice when his point is weak by posting ad nauseum. It seems that Mike doesn’t argue to prove his point, he argues to be noticed.
Posted by: Micha at November 22, 2006 07:43 AM
So long as the Turkey is a concenting adult this is a valid life style choice. It is wrong to mock someone’s personal life. Especially when the absurdity of his own words speaks for itself.
Yeah, yeah, I know, I shouldn’t poke the troll. But it’s hard to resist! 🙂
Unh, hunh.
Thanks for quoting my self-correction.
How does a self-correction qualify as a bìŧçhšláp?
What the fûçk are you babbling about? If they have a closed registration, they are employing censorship. I cited wikipedia as to when they started posting-restrictions. And no one caught me, you quoted me correcting myself.
I pointed out they humiliate the year’s dead and they have a closed registration, and you make it sound like I said the first rule of Fight Club is you don’t talk about Fight Club. Again, that’s very fûçkëd up of you, Bill Mulligan.
I was going by their disclaimer, with which they continue to reserve the right to censor posts:
And then someone gave his word no censorship takes place at Lennie Green Footballs, and I took his word. Now they have closed registration. So what’s your problem?
I haven’t been protecting my name. You can find my last name by going to the site I was linking to when I signed my posts here last year. I stopped linking to that site because I haven’t updated that site since january. Now I don’t list my name because as a racist you are threatened by ethnic names. I would rather incite you with the plainly observable truth of your actions.
What Jerry did was threaten to stalk:
Michelle Malkin got into one of her flame wars by posting personal contact info from a political flyer she objected to, resulting in the recipients getting flooded with hate spam. In return her own personal contact info was distributed, resulting in reciprocal spam, which — with no sense of irony — she also objected to.
Jerry himself cited the posts where I link to my site. He even cited my pimp/høøkër beating analogy at the first opportunity to do so. Then he says, “A few things he’s said in the last week made me even more sure of his I.D.” All I’ve done is let him know stalking me will only shed a public spotlight on your sheltered racism.
Only every time I have to correct your inaccuracies.
Well, you’ve said you find beatings sexual. That explains why you insist on attacking me.
You heard it here, folks: sending Saddam Hussein a letter of friendship after the state department memo citing his use of chemical weapons was a-ok. Makes you wonder what his pesky trial and death sentence are all about.
On what world does “the phrases match” deny the phrases match?
The definition Mike quotes says genocide is:
Yes, the definition I’m quoting says “killing members of another race etc. is genocide.” If finishing off the ethnic group are required to qualify for genocide, then the nazis were plainly not guilty of genocide, since we still have Jews.
The definition says a killing has to take place, and that intent to a race-killing has to be established, which is also a requirement in hate crime laws.
So a slavery-related killing, then, is not genocide?
Lemkin’s definition of genocide includes extensive manipulation of an ethnicity (“(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;”). It’s saying that by oppressing or enslaving an ethnic group, your intent is to destroy it.
The race privileges you people are trying to reserve for yourselves are really fûçkëd up.
Again, the public undressing by Bill Myers. No, I can’t stop you with your circle-jerk fantasies involving a group of men watching pørņ as women are kept out. Enjoy.
No one is getting censored here. It took me a bit to figure out that a bunch of replies to other replies were getting stuck in the spam filter. Some I have manged to clear and others are sort of lost/stuck in the filter.
Kath
Happy Thanksgiving, everybody. I personally am thankful for all of you, and for the fact that I can share ideas and lousy jokes with you. (If I ever get any good ones, I’ll share those, too.) I’m also thankful for the fact that Peter hosts this little party(and Glenn, too!) and invites all of us.
Genocide
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, religious, political, or ethnic group.
Under the terms of the convention, “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group, (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
Any normal person reading the above text can understand that “killing members of the group” in this context is genocidal only when it is part of an attempt to commit genocide, i.e. the destruction of a group.
For example: if a neo-nazi kills a Jew today, that Jew is not the victim of genocide the way the holocaust victims were.
“On what world does “the phrases match” deny the phrases match?”
In a world where irony exists. Our world.
“The definition says a killing has to take place, and that intent to a race-killing has to be established, which is also a requirement in hate crime laws.”
No, the intent that has to be established is the intent to eliminate a race. Hate crime requires that the murder was motivated by hate toward a race.
“So a slavery-related killing, then, is not genocide?”
Slavery related killings are genocidal in so far as slavery was a genocidal act. Was it a genocidal act? Slave owners indeed did not want to eliminate blacks, but by taking millions of Africans from their native environment and desroying their cultural identity, it could be said that there acts were genocidal. The deaths of many in the slave boats is also genocidal, both because of the large numbers involved, and because of it being part of the industrial machine of slavery. These boats always remind me of the trains used to transport Jews during the holocaust.
Lynching is not genocial. The objective of lynching was to terrorize blacks, not eliminating them.
“(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
This does not refer to slavery really. There were cases in Australia, I think, in which aboriginee children were given over to white families, in order to remove their cultural identities.
However, the Othoman method of taking Christian children and training them as Muslim soldiers is not genocidal, I think.
“Lemkin’s definition of genocide includes extensive manipulation of an ethnicity (“(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;”). It’s saying that by oppressing or enslaving an ethnic group, your intent is to destroy it.”
No, that’s not what it is saying. It is not referring to any oppression, and not even any slavery. During the holocaust living in ghettoes and slave labor, both under very harsh conditions were used consciously as part of the overall system. The plan was to starve and work them until they died, as opposed to other forms of slavery which had an interest in the slaves living (but which maybe can be considered genocidal for the reason I mentioned above).
“Yes, the definition I’m quoting says “killing members of another race etc. is genocide.” If finishing off the ethnic group are required to qualify for genocide, then the nazis were plainly not guilty of genocide, since we still have Jews.”
This is both a strawman and a stupid argument.
The people who write dictionary definitions define genocide literally as the deliberate and systematic destruction etc. But, since they haven’t met you Mike, they assume that people are capable of understanding that an attempt to destroy a race which results in the death of many people should be considered genocide even if it was unsuccessful, as in the case of the holocaust. These good people never realized that there would come a person who needs to be spoonfed in order to understand their definitions.
In my country there are people, in the right and left, who like to throw around references to the holocaust for political purposes. These people are scum. By doing that they are trivializing the experiences of the holocaust, while usually causing harm to the causes they wish to promote. Their only excuse is that in a country like ours the holocaust has a long psychological effect on our society (even beyond the survivors and their descendants). What is your excuse Mike?
Micha,
“Jerry, I have this image of you as Charlton Heston in the last scene from Planet of the Apes.”
More like Homer Simpson finding out that the his last bottle of Duff beer got smashed.
“NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!”
Oh, happy thanksgiving to you.
Thanks for quoting my self-correction.
You’re welcome, but really, pointing out when you get your facts wrong is highly enjoyable. No thanks necessary.
How does a self-correction qualify as a bìŧçhšláp?
It’s not the apology, it’s the fact that by the end of the thread you were such an object of scorn and mirth, barging in their like…well, you, and then looking foolish. I’ll bet they miss you there.
What the fûçk are you babbling about? If they have a closed registration, they are employing censorship. I cited wikipedia as to when they started posting-restrictions. And no one caught me, you quoted me correcting myself.
AFTER they had caught you in a lie. And which is it–you were right or you were wrong and “corrected” it. No it’s ok–don’t hurt yourself with another contortion.
I pointed out they humiliate the year’s dead and they have a closed registration, and you make it sound like I said the first rule of Fight Club is you don’t talk about Fight Club. Again, that’s very fûçkëd up of you, Bill Mulligan.
That must be in another thread. Wow, for a guy who thinks looking at that site makes you fuuuuucked uuuup you sure were there an awful lot. What does that make you, Mike?
I haven’t been protecting my name. You can find my last name by going to the site I was linking to when I signed my posts here last year. I stopped linking to that site because I haven’t updated that site since january. Now I don’t list my name because as a racist you are threatened by ethnic names. I would rather incite you with the plainly observable truth of your actions.
I’m amazed that you make so many assumptions about the people here based solely on their names. I know you aren’t the only minority here. Even within my own family there are Persians, Asians and Latinos. You need to get out and meet more people. Wait. No, scratch that. Nevermind.
Don’t worry. Nobody is threatened in the least by your name. Now if you want to keep it hidden so that all the other Mike L****s of the world don’t have to keep seeing their good names associated with “trollish jerk” when they google themselves, go right ahead.
What Jerry did was threaten to stalk:
Really? This should be good…
He’s thrown out enough certain phrases that I was pretty sure that I knew who the guy was several weeks ago. A few things he’s said in the last week made me even more sure of his I.D.
Um….that’s it?
Michelle Malkin got into one of her flame wars by posting personal contact info from a political flyer she objected to, resulting in the recipients getting flooded with hate spam. In return her own personal contact info was distributed, resulting in reciprocal spam, which — with no sense of irony — she also objected to.
Gee, that’s fascinating. This matter why?
Jerry himself cited the posts where I link to my site. He even cited my pimp/høøkër beating analogy at the first opportunity to do so. Then he says, “A few things he’s said in the last week made me even more sure of his I.D.” All I’ve done is let him know stalking me will only shed a public spotlight on your sheltered racism.
Oh, it was his quoting YOU that made it a threat. Wow, seriously, read all that again, out loud. It’s the stupidest thing you’ve written since you told Craig “You’re so stupid you don’t even know what smart is.” (Which should be a poster or something. I don’t know if you were drunk when you wrote that but for your sake I HOPE you were drunk.)
So you’re backing off on the threat to sic CNN on us. Hot Ðámņ! We were worried!
Well, you’ve said you find beatings sexual. That explains why you insist on attacking me.
Actually I find that you often put weird violent and/or sexual references in your posts–the pimp beating a høøkër analogy being a bit of both. No doubt this quirk of yours will rear its head shortly.
…any of the following acts committed with , in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group;
Yes, the definition I’m quoting says “killing members of another race etc. is genocide.” If finishing off the ethnic group are required to qualify for genocide, then the nazis were plainly not guilty of genocide, since we still have Jews.
And we see a perfect example of Mike-Logic. Follow this carefully. He pretends that “intent to destroy” must be the same as actually “finishing off”. He wants to pretend that we all believe that only a successful genocide is an actual genocide. Sorry Mike, we aren’t responsible for the deficiencies in your reading comprehension. If you can’t tell that “intent to destroy” does not require actual success in that endeavor why should we listen to any definition from you again?
The race privileges you people are trying to reserve for yourselves are really fûçkëd up.
That sort of thing might work on impressionable college kids who don’t know what a kook you are but simply yelling “racism” in a crowded forum inhabited by grownups is unlikely to win your arguments. But hey, you have to go with what you’ve got and it obviously ain’t logic.
Again, the public undressing by Bill Myers. No, I can’t stop you with your circle-jerk fantasies involving a group of men watching pørņ as women are kept out. Enjoy.
Annnnd there it is. A psychotherapist would have a great time with you, Mike. Might even get a book out of it!
Well, that was fun, as always. Mike–never leave. As long as Peter doesn’t get sick of all of us and toss us the hëll off his board, I’m ok with just leaving this as the “let Mike exorcise his personal demons” thread.
(Hey Mike, are you the same Mike L**** who once posted “I fûçkìņg hate this guy. I read his site, and he mentions the chronic Parkinsons-like pain he is suffering in his hands, and I can’t help thinking that he deserves it.” Sure hope not because that would really make you fuuuuuuuked uuuuuup)